There is nothing “crazy” about Bernie’s plan at all, I find it pretty reasonable. Then again, what I ultimately want is nationalization and socialization of the medical and pharmaceutical industries, so I see his plan as a reasonable compromise in the system we currently have. And it can absolutely work and gain mass support if we sell it right, or even want to sell it at all. The longer we wait, the more people will die when they don’t have to, or the more people will be forced to go into poverty or bankruptcy.
And there are other issues like Green New Deal that we absolutely need right now. We need to start taking drastic action to mitigate or reverse our damage to this planet. The events of this past year have shown that we are running out of time and can’t wait for incremental change as politicians on both sides are capitulating with capitalists who still have to make a profit.
The funny thing is that Biden’s plan is actually much more aggressive than what you’re characterizing it as. His plan includes a public option available to people regardless of whether they’re able to get health insurance through an employer, a market or have no other options. It also includes automatic enrollment for people when the lose their private care.
I really wish Biden had played up how much of a big deal this would be if he was able to enact it. I didn’t watch all of the debates, but I’m pretty sure the only time the public option came up was when Biden was asked whether it would eliminate private insurance and he said something like “it would only be available for very poor people.” I think he was trying to indicate that it would only be free for poor people; other people would have to option to buy in, but it sounded like a major gaffe to me at the time. It ended up not making any waves, I guess because the Dems never spent any time ginning up support for it in the first place. And it’s really frustrating because the public option actually polls well in spite of how much the Dems run away from it.
Yep, as someone affected I was giving up hope for any nationwide change until the Supreme Court weighed in and affirmed our rights. And the same kind of arguments were made by the right back then, that it should have been up to the will of the majority. When it doesn’t matter how it was done, only that it was.
I can’t just wait around for majority approval for my rights to be respected.
Maybe I’m understanding it wrong but you seem claim that it was moderates/centrists who lost the election for Clinton. If that’s the correct understanding then why did the moderates vote for Biden?
I think it was part of shoring up the ACA. And, to be honest, I think he’s going to have his hands full trying to restore all the holes the Trump Administration has punched into the ACA. I do think he wanted to leverage how popular all the aspects of the ACA are (ending pre-existing condition exclusions, lifetime limits), as opposed to getting drawn into “well, how much will this cost” sort of game.
Though I do wonder how things would look different (for the better, IMO) if they could have gotten one more vote for the public option back in 2009-10.
To answer the question that many Clinton supporters may be asking: By this data, yes — there are enough of those Sanders-Trump voters who could have potentially swung the election toward Clinton and away from Trump.
Specifically, if the Sanders-Trump voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had voted for Clinton, or even stayed home on Election Day, those states would have swung to Clinton, and she would have won 46 more electoral votes, putting her at 278 — enough to win, in other words.
But then, it’s not as simple as that. First off, this counterfactual world in which these voters didn’t vote for Trump rests on a few ifs . If the Sanders-Trump voters in these three states had defected and if nothing else had happened to somehow take electoral votes from Clinton elsewhere and if this survey is correct … then yes, Clinton would have won. (Some would also argue that if Clinton had campaigned more in the so-called “blue wall” states, she also could have picked up more votes.)
A more important caveat, perhaps, is that other statistics suggest that this level of “defection” isn’t all that out of the ordinary. Believing that all those Sanders voters somehow should have been expected to not vote for Trump may be to misunderstand how primary voters behave.
For example, Schaffner tells NPR that around 12 percent of Republican primary voters (including 34 percent of Ohio Gov. John Kasich voters and 11 percent of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio voters) ended up voting for Clinton. And according to one 2008 study, around 25 percent of Clinton primary voters in that election ended up voting for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the general. (In addition, the data showed 13 percent of McCain primary voters ended up voting for Obama, and 9 percent of Obama voters ended up voting for McCain — perhaps signaling something that swayed voters between primaries and the general election, or some amount of error in the data, or both.)
I wonder if the reason his totally reasonable plan could never pass congress has something to do with the way you (and others) portray the left and the right in the US?
My point is that DrDeth is here crowing about how nuts and radically to the left the Sanders proposal is, but then he admitted that it’s actually not a crazy idea at all; it is just viewed that way by the Republicans in congress and therefore would never pass.
My question is whether this is because the Sanders proposal is ACTUALLY a crazy unworkable idea, or if it is viewed as much crazier than it is due to the intentional undermining of the idea by people on the Right, a process to which DrDeth is also contributing by swallowing whole the “radical far left idea” narrative and parroting it here.
Finkenauer DID actively promote her vision for UHC during her campaign. Didn’t stop AOC and progressives from using her lukewarm feelings towards M4A SPECIFICALLY as the reason she lost.
Thanks, I hadn’t heard of her until now, but this clip I found when I googled her is basically what I want to see more of from other Democrats. Obviously it unfortunately wasn’t enough for her. I really wish Biden had laid it out in terms this simple on a national level. It may not have been good enough for this district, but I’d really like to think some of the downballot races would have done better if they had this kind of healthcare messaging, especially if it came both in the local/state races and from Biden.
And obviously it’s just plain wrong to blame someone like that in a swing district for losing because she didn’t support M4A.
For this discussion I’m just interested in how to campaign on an establishment healthcare plan. I think there are ways to have the argument if it turns into something like “how much will it cost” - I think then you could mention other things in Biden’s plan like subsidies that reduce the cost working/middle class people have to pay, and then mention that we just need the rich to pay there fair share for people who can’t afford insurance on their own. The frustrating thing is it seems like a lot of the moderate Dems - and it has been pointed out to me that there are exceptions - don’t seem to want to have the fight at all.
As far as what could actually happen, we now know with the election results that unless the Democrats win both Georgia races and nuke the filibuster, they’re not going to get any of their legislative agenda passed. The only thing they’ll be able to do is actually fund existing elements in the ACA. I think that it’s still important to campaign on what your vision for the country is - even during the campaign the most optimistic outcome would have still required the Dems to nuke the filibuster to actually pass anything; the main difference would be that it might take 3-5 centrist Dems in the senate to stop things rather than having 1, or even no majority.